Sunday, June 24, 2007

The Gottlieb Deposition

Mark Gottlieb’s April 19, 2007 deposition is now out, posted in its entirety at Liestoppers; a summary is below.

The highlights:

Gottlieb admitted that his “supplemental case notes” were, in fact, written months after the events they allegedly described;

The April 4 lineup was, he suggested, procedurally proper, because none of the lacrosse players were “suspects” at the time;

The investigation, as of March 22, was not about to end; and before the April 4 lineup had reached a stalemate.

Gottlieb comes across as a figure who plays fast and loose with the rules, and who harbors a deep dislike for Duke students. Although he doesn’t say it explicitly, he also leaves little doubt that he continues to believe a crime occurred.

The “Straight-from-Memory” Notes

Under questioning from the Bar’s attorney, Doug Brocker, Gottlieb conceded that his typewritten case “notes” almost always were not produced contemporaneously. The exception was the transcript of the April 4 lineup.

Nifong-like, Gottlieb offered a variety of excuses for this peculiar note-taking habit:

He did take contemporaneous notes—on a “dry-eraser board”—but Officer Ben Himan mistakenly neglected to take photos of the board(!) each day before Gottlieb erased its contents;

He wasn’t really that involved in the investigation, so he had nothing to record;

Officer Michele Soucie usually took handwritten notes for him;

He did take contemporaneous notes, of a sort, by radio log, through calling into police dispatch. Even though defense attorneys had requested these recordings be preserved, they, like the “dry-eraser board,” were conveniently erased.

When, Brocker asked, did Gottlieb type up the most explosive item in his memorandum, the alleged descriptions that Crystal Mangum gave of her attackers on March 16?

Answer: Just before he submitted his report to Nifong, on July 14.

How, then, did Gottlieb come up with Mangum’s suspect descriptions?

Answer: From Himan’s handwritten notes, and from his memory—almost four months after the fact—of what Mangum had said.

So, Gottlieb’s story is: He looked at Himan’s handwritten notes of the March 16th interview sometime in early July. He saw Himan’s notes of what Mangum had said. But he, instead, remembered Mangum giving dead-on descriptions of the three people ultimately indicted, even though Himan’s contemporaneous notes reported something entirely different, and the sergeant had taken no notes of the session.

(This, it’s worth remembering, is the version of the case that the New York Times presented to the world as authentic last August.)

The April 4 Photo Array

Gottlieb conceded that as of March 31, 2006, the investigation had reached a “stalemate.” The idea for the lacrosse-players-only lineup, he noted, came from Nifong, but neither he nor Himan nor anyone else from the DPD objected to Nifong’s scheme.

Gottlieb conceded that he had considered all of the players except for first-name Brett, Adam, and Matt—and Dan Flannery and Dave Evans—to be “fillers” in the March 16 and March 21 lineups. But, he said, the Duke website photos were “military-style,” explaining why Mangum couldn’t identify her “attackers.”

The suspects-only approach in the April 4 lineup, Gottlieb suggested, was justified on two grounds: (1) the police were searching for witnesses, not the perpetrators of the crime; (2) Nifong was testing to see whether drugs might have impaired Mangum’s memory.

Both of these assertions, of course, are preposterous: to accept the first would require believing that the police taped a lineup they hoped would produce witnesses but not lineups they hoped would produce suspects. And the second claim was, simply, baffling, as Brocker pointed out in the exchange below:

Q: How would the photographic presentation that was put together have shed any light on what drugs she may or may not have been under? I’m not following that point.

A: OK. Let’s say you took a date-rape drug that causes amnesia, you wouldn’t be able to identify anybody as, “Oh, I remember him, he was standing outside smoking; I remember him, he was watching television; I remember him, he urinating in the backyard.” They wouldn’t remember anything. Whereas if you are drugged with ecstasy, you would have recall, and that would explain why she was having the physical signs and symptoms of an intoxicant yet still having her memory.

Q. Did Mr. Nifong explain why doing this photographic presentation as opposed to a photographic array that had been done before would be more helpful to bring that point out?

A. All I can say is he didn’t ask for a photographic array. He was dealing with, my understanding, he was asking for this to see what she recalled and what she didn’t recall.

Q. OK. Just to make sure I’m clear, it was Mr. Nifong’s decision to conduct this photographic presentation as opposed to having her provided photographic arrays as had been done before?

A. Yes.

Gottlieb saw no problem with his running the April 4 array because, he said, he didn’t really know the identities of any of the players, except for the captains. That claim, however, flies in the face of his behavior when the players came to the police station to comply with the non-testimonial order. Then, he identified several of the players by name and said that they didn’t look like their Duke website photos. In short, there’s every reason to believe that Gottlieb knew the identities of each and every member of the team before the April 4 session.

Mangum, he further asserted, did what she was supposed to do in the April 4 session, describing what each person she identified did to her. He denied that she identified four attackers, didn’t explain why sometimes he asked follow-up questions and sometimes he didn’t, and suggested that a suspects-only lineup wasn’t all that unusual in the DPD.

After repeated questioning from Brocker, Gottlieb eventually conceded that he could not recall another of his cases in which indictments resulted from a photo ID that hadn’t followed procedure.

Blame Himan

At least eight separate times in the deposition, Gottlieb asserted that the case was Himan’s, not his. Despite this claim, however, the sergeant managed to discuss his involvement in the case for more than six hours—on topics ranging from interviewing the three captains to chatting with SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy to running the April 4 lineup to attending the three meetings with Dr. Brian Meehan.

Overall, moreover, Gottlieb’s blame-Himan defense proved (unintentionally) devastating for Nifong, since the sergeant admitted that Himan was responsible for turning documents over to Nifong—fortifying Himan’s DHC testimony that Nifong was fully aware of the inconsistencies in Crystal Mangum’s stories as of March 27.

Nifong’s Role

Gottlieb reiterated the explosive revelation in his case “notes” that on March 24, 2006, his immediate superior, Capt. Jeff Lamb, told him to coordinate all matters related to the investigation with Nifong; and “to make sure that everything that was done was approved by the DA’s office, and basically to follow their leads.”

And, Gottlieb continued, after March 24, 2006, that’s exactly how the investigation was run.

This testimony contradicts Nifong’s contrary claim, under oath, during his disciplinary proceedings; it also suggests that the Baker/Chalmers report that the DPD was always in charge of the investigation was, in fact, a whitewash.

Bob Ekstrand Was Right

In the days before March 22, attorney Wes Covington (whose clients were unclear—he told the captains he wasn’t officially their lawyer) had arranged for all the members of the team to be questioned (without counsel, and without telling their parents) by the DPD. This visit, he intimated, would end the case—each player would be asked a question or two, just to close out the file.

Duke, Gottlieb continued, was a willing participant in this scheme to bring its own students in “under the radar.”

Once he found out about this plan (from team captain Dan Flannery), Ekstrand suspected a trap. He was right.

Gottlieb admitted in the deposition that the DPD intended to “see if they would allow DNA. See if they would allow photographs, et cetera.” Those, of course, are steps to expand an investigation, not bring it to a close—as would happen the next day, after the DPD secured the procedurally fraudulent non-testimonial order.

Tracey Cline

Gottlieb was even clearer than Himan on the origins of the NTO: after speaking with Tracey Cline, “the district attorney’s office thought it was a good idea to go ahead and do a Non-Testimonial.”

This raises the question, once again: what “reasonable suspicion” did Assistant District Attorney Cline, who remains in the employ of the DA’s office, have to believe that Brad Ross, one of the subjects of the NTO, should be considered a “suspect”?

Gottlieb also claims that Nifong told Mangum that “he would be working very closely with Ms. Cline.”

The Seligmann Indictment

Gottlieb confirmed Himan’s testimony to the Disciplinary Hearing Committee completely: that Himan believed that the department didn’t have enough evidence to indict Seligmann, that Gottlieb communicated Himan’s concerns to their superiors in the DPD, and that Nifong dismissed them, arguing that if the police believed one aspect of Mangum’s stor(ies), they should believe her entire stor(ies).

At a conference call including Gottlieb, Capt. Lamb, and Lt. Mike Ripberger, Nifong informed them that enough evidence existed to move forward with an indictment against Seligmann.

Gottlieb: “I told him our concerns and basically he made the decision.”

Gottlieb’s Memory Problems

For a man who admitted composing his case notes “straight from memory,” Gottlieb seems to have an awfully poor memory. For instance, he stated that he couldn’t remember any specific details from the March 27 meeting, the first time that he and Himan briefed Nifong on the case.

Eventually, however, under detailed questioning from Brocker, Gottlieb conceded that he and Himan comprehensively briefed Nifong on the status of the investigation, and that this briefing probably occurred on the 27th, or earlier.

Gottlieb on Mangum

Gottlieb repeatedly claimed that Mangum had been consistent in her stories from March 14 through December (if this sounds very much like a claim in Duff Wilson’s widely ridiculed August New York Times story, it should).

Brocker then asked him about Mangum’s claims in her March 15 visit to UNC—when she asserted that she was “drunk” and felt no pain, and in which she stated that during the “attack,” one of the “attackers knocked her down, causing her to hit her head on the sink.

Gottlieb’s response? “This is not a report that I have had time to review.”

He and Nifong made the perfect team.

In describing his March 16 interview with Mangum, Gottlieb repeated the classic line from his notes: “She was having a difficult time ambulating.” And, much like Nifong, Gottlieb repeatedly described Mangum as “the victim” during his deposition.

Meehan

Gottlieb was positive that Nifong attended all three meetings with the lab director. Why? Because “I am not a scientific person as far as understanding things,” and Meehan “was going through a lot of information that was over my head; I wasn’t quite understanding it.”

When the meeting occurred, Meehan went over the printouts showing the unidentified male DNA. But Gottlieb retained no memory of it, because “I was completely lost.”

At the second meeting, Gottlieb recalled Meehan “going on and on and on about what has been done, again, in scientific terms that when you sit there long enough, and you’re just lost.”

His being “lost” yielded a remarkable recollection—that, he guessed, Meehan said the odds of the fingernail DNA not being Dave Evans’ was “one in 900-some trillion.” In fact, Meehan said that Evans was among 2 percent of the entire population whose DNA might be in the fingernail mixture.

Keeping in mind that Meehan is (as Lane Williamson put it) “Mr. Obfuscation,” shouldn’t a figure with nearly 20 years on the force be able to understand the role that DNA would play in this case?

The sergeant did, however, provide two pieces of information utterly damning to Nifong. First, he noted that at both the April 10 and April 21 meetings, Meehan had gone through the results of every test that he had done.

Second, when asked about the May 12 report, he said, “It was my impression that what we got was the final report.” Indeed, claimed Gottlieb, Meehan discussed how he would testify about the report in trial.

The Origins of the McFadyen E-mail

The special prosecutors told at least one member of the team (during his interview) that they believed that the captains’ computers were not the source of the McFadyen e-mail (as I had previously believed).

That leaves only two possible sources: one of the players (extremely unlikely) or someone at Duke. In a throwaway line, Gottlieb revealed that the McFadyen e-mail was forwarded not just to CrimeStoppers but to Capt. LaVarge of the DPD. The DPD’s policy is never to ask from where CrimeStoppers gets its information—but by forwarding the e-mail to LaVarge, “that does away with the confidentiality.”

Gottlieb commented that the department did try to find out who forwarded the e-mail, but didn’t seem to know the results.

Stray Items

Gottlieb confirmed that Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge—a current contender for chief—was fully involved in the chain of command on case-related decisions.

The sergeant confessed that he “looked at blogs” during the case.

---------

All told, this was a chilling deposition, given by a figure who continues to believe that he did nothing wrong in obtaining indictments against three demonstrably innocent people for a crime that never took place.

In the days before March 22, attorney Wes Covington (whose clients were unclear—he told the captains he wasn’t officially their lawyer) had arranged for all the members of the team to be questioned (without counsel, and without telling their parents) by the DPD. This visit, he intimidated, would end the case—each player would be asked a question or two, just to close out the file.

Maybe "intimated"? Anyway, where did Wes Covington come from and where did he go?

So we had Tracy Cline, Deputy DA with Saacks, who is a sexual assault specialist who tells Rookie Himan to write the 23 March NTO. She doesn't give it to another ADA but lets a cub detective write a 46 man DNA Sweep that never has been done before in Durham. Nifong finds it on a copier, Saacks submits it as a favor for Cline.

It is poorly written and Superior Judge Stephens, a former DA , signs it without any physical descriptions and the data about her "injuries" doesn't match the SANE Exam..

Replace 'url' in the above with the actual www.address.com or .net etcBe sure to put the quotation marks before and after the www.address

Replace 'text to be displayed' with whatever you want to show up as your link (in blue, underlined). For example, if you're linking a story about Nifong's testimony at the disciplinary hearing, you could use Nifong Is A Liar and that becomes your hyperlink.

More stuff with CrimeStoppers. So a "little birdie", some "concerned citizen" with access to players hard drives seized under warrant or a Duke Employee working in Computer Services able to review students email Server files sent it on to the Little Corporal (David Addison).

Then after that Gottlieb and other DPD called McFadyen in and said they would release that email unless he "turned" on other players.

More open ends. I have always thought that Nifong also had DPD community communications on the Office of the Chief following his orders to mount an orchestrated (with NIfong) media campaign to slander and defame the accused to make a jury conviction more likely and Nifong more politically popular. If such a conspiracy existed, it was another crime. Addison and Kammie Michaels best get lawyers for the deposition on all the stuff they said and wrote and who informed them what to say, and gave them the senior DPD/Nifong MGMT blessoff on each communication before Major Lee Russ shut the media campaign down..

People looking at the various defamatory statements have noted in the past that many of the statements and media interviews by Nifong and Addison (plus his defamatory CrimeStoppers posters) had phrases and allegations of clear guilt that matched word-for-word.

************McFadyen's E-mail also raises some interesting questions about electronic privacy rights and due process. If his good name was trashed by a Duke employee violating his emails, he may have a very good separate lawsuit going against Duke and DPD. There are rules, felony rules on cops using info unrelated to the search warrant or discovery of other criminal activity in the search to attempt to blackmail, slander, profit by using such irrelevant info against the suspect in other venues.***********************And I'm interested to know if it was Gottlieb that used info from the captain's harddrives and servers to send the email purportedly from one player saying he was tired of holding back the "truth of the players guilt" and was cooperating. Something also leaked to the media...and IMO, even more legal exposure for DPD. And Nifong, if he approved the stunt.*************Also, the guy that went after and got the Gottlieb deposition goes by the Internet nom de plume "Tony Soprano". I notice KC didn't credit the specific Liestopper poster, no doubt an oversight given KC's courteous and fair treatment of people he deals with.

Well done, Tony. The series may be over, but I'd rather you continue the role than Bill Clinton.

1. Witt on cross exposed that Nifong order the 4 April photo array video taped. Odd that a DA would want a "photo presentation" as Gottlieb described it video taped.

2. Gottlieb kept talking about DNA "under" the fake finernail. It is my memory that Mr. Chreshire said it was on top of the finger nail. If so, the whole discussion of a scratch on Evans becomes moot.

3. Gottlieb had his own attorney and a DPD attorney there. He knows he is in danger and he tried to stay on Nifong's team every step of the way.

4. Gottlieb outlined his grand jury and if he happened to be being truthful it was more more expansive than I would have expected. But I don't believe he went into details about the ID or anything else like he said.

5. Gottlieb lied several times. Particularly when he claimed Finnerty fit the description when in fact Finnerty fit no description until Gottlieb's August notes arose out of thin air.

6. Gottlieb claimed to be one of the most clueless detectives of all time. He failed to worry about Mangum's failure to ID Evans and Seligmann in the actual photo arrays but that she did on 4 April. He fails to notice the inconsistency with her inability to sit at her house and the sane finding. He fails link the 96 hour time limit on certain types of DNA and Mamgum's lie about no sex for the last week.

7. Of course this man who takes no notes and I bet has testified with great confidence in many other cases could remember little in this one.

Doesn't the request for a NTO make all 46 Duke players suspects?Doesn't taking DNA from all 46 players make them suspects?Doesn't having the SBI perform DNA testing against the players DNA make them suspects?

If most or all of the 46 players were NOT suspects on 4/4 at the photo lineup, when did they stop being suspects? It cannot be on the basis of no DNA matches. Those result were not know until after 4/4.

Nifong is definitely not alone in perpetrating this "fiasco". The Durham Police Department needs to be fully investigated with a special focus on their apparent disdain for Duke students. Also, do DPD personnel receive any training regarding the civil rights that all U.S. citizens have? Was Wes Covington working for the DPD?

To anon. 12:40, Bob Ekstrand was the players' attorney at the very beginning, when they had to provide DNA evidence under the non-testimonial order. As it turns out, Ekstrand knew that Gottlieb was targeting Duke students, and he was even representing one of the three captains at 610 N. Buchanan from a noise violation infraction. Until Ekstrand stepped in, Duke was advising the players to do everything the police asked, without any legal representation and without advising their parents.

KC's analysis of Gottlieb's deposition provides a number of astonishing revelations about the conduct of Law Enforcement during the case.

As has been true at virtually every twist and turn, the new information points in only one direction: towards the absolute innocence of all of the lacrosse players/partygoers, and towards the complicity of the Durham Police Department, the Durham D.A.'s Office, and parties in the Duke Administration in perpetuating a Hoax and a Frame.

It is worth recalling that, as a typical story develops, some newly-released information seems to point one way, and some points in a contrary direction.

For informed citizens, the question seems to come down to:

Among those implicated--* Who was "Just following orders"?* Who was knowingly involved in the unfolding Hoax?* Who was active in framing the 3 Duke students?

These are grave accusations that can only be addressed by a thorough investigation with subpoena powers. Unfortunately, the easy task is to compile a list of principals who do not want to see such a proceeding take place.

What a joke! The guy is a bully when he can be. Pushing around little Duke students. I will bet that he is real chickenshit when confronted when he can't flash he badge around and can only flash his big belly and bald head. He says that he reads the blogs. I hope that he is reading this comment. Gottlieb, you are pathetic piece of crap. You have demonstrated that you are a thug and a liar. Those lacrosse boys are bright, articulate, honest and athletic. And you have none of those characteristics. You are what's wrong with Durham, pal.

It's worth emphasizing Cedarford's 3:52am observation (above) on Gottlieb's inadvertent disclosure of one subsidiary part of the Frame:

"More stuff with CrimeStoppers. So a "little birdie", some "concerned citizen" with access to players hard drives seized under warrant or a Duke Employee working in Computer Services able to review students email Server files sent it on to the Little Corporal (David Addison).

Then after that Gottlieb and other DPD called McFadyen in and said they would release that email unless he "turned" on other players."

The tape over the latch on the stairwell exit was a small thing, but its discovery was the event that triggered an investigation... one that led to the discovery of burglars in the Democratic Party headquarters, and then to the Watergate scandal.

The Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Frame is littered with Who/What/When/Where clues. The chain of events that led to Gottlieb's posession of the McFadyen email is one of these. Cedarford's wrong, it wasn't "a little birdie" that unearthed this nugget and then sent it along to where it could be of greatest use in the unfolding Frame. There were a series of individuals at Duke, CrimeStoppers, the DPD, and the DA's office who were involved. All we know for sure is that these people are being silent (or perhaps lying) as to the circumstances of their involvement. And that, failing compulsion (e.g. testimony compelled by subpoena), they will continue to participate in the "Wall of Silence" that surrounds all aspects of the Frame.

I don't know if this is the appropriate thread in which to write this but...I figured they were innocent from the beginning for a very simple reason. This is coming from an older, southern woman so take it for what it is worth. I didn't figure that those boys would have touched a woman like her with someone else's member, much less their own. I know the popular narrative right now is that men are barely controlled beasts, etc., but when actually confronted with a loaded, probably unwashed, poorly dressed, badly-weaved member of the black underclass, do you really think that rich white boys are going to think - let's jump that? The whole story just didn't ring true. Think about it. That's what I told my husband over a year ago and evidence has proven me right.

...The Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Frame is littered with Who/What/When/Where clues. The chain of events that led to Gottlieb's possession of the McFadyen email is one of these. Cedarford's wrong, it wasn't "a little birdie" that unearthed this nugget and then sent it along to where it could be of greatest use in the unfolding Frame. There were a series of individuals at Duke, CrimeStoppers, the DPD, and the DA's office who were involved. All we know for sure is that these people are being silent (or perhaps lying) as to the circumstances of their involvement. And that, failing compulsion (e.g. testimony compelled by subpoena), they will continue to participate in the "Wall of Silence" that surrounds all aspects of the Frame. ::That's it! Well said.

All we have to do is ask which groups at Duke and in Durham would benefit greatly (or think they would) if they took down a white male sports team or fraternity.::GP

I hope that after reading all that has come out on this case, those who try to minimize the fact that the 3 Duke students came close to being convicted of a crime that never occured--stop saying "the system" worked. The system did not work. One vote the other way and all this would have succeeded in being covered up. The system still is not "working." It's through the hard work of their attorneys and people like KC that we have witnessed the falicy of that statement. Unless there is a real cleanup from the top down, watch out if you are ever arrested and belong to the "priviledged" class.(Anyone who is not part of a minority group.)

1. He apparently did not feel he could trust the DPD attorney and thus had personal representation. This is evidence that interests were diverging.

2. Said representation is likely to have cost him personally, but that I don't know for sure.

3. This was the equivalent to a civil deposition. There was no criminal investigation going on where Gottlieb might be charged. This was testimony ONLY for the Bar hearing on Nifong. So despite not being any way shape or form able to be investigated by this group, ie not having a law license, Gottlieb thought it worthwhile to have independent council.

"watch out if you are ever arrested and belong to the "priviledged" class.(Anyone who is not part of a minority group.)"

You left a good comment, but missed the same thing that the Hard Leftists consistently miss about the Hoax/Frame.

You think suspects who are not "privileged" or who are "part of a minority group" have a better time with the problems that this case is revealing? That corrupt cops and DAs are somehow nicer to people who can't afford the lawyers and investigators who might ensure that they get a fair hearing?

This case should have been a wedge for the Innocence Project, the NAACP, and the ACLU to bring home the problems that anybody risks experiencing when the Power of the State is entrusted to corrupt, malign, self-serving, and incompetent people.

The leaders of these organizations are so trapped by their Hard Left beliefs that they can't see it. Even now.

If you google Wes Covington and check out his bio, you will note he was once an Assistant DA in Durham. Hmmmm? At least he attended Duke undergrad so you have to assume he had no special dislike of Duke students, although not clear where his loyalties may have been.

In our jusified outrage at the entire fiasco that was this hoax, some of us here, I think, get too angry at peripheral figures who deserve more mocking and disdain, than the hatred that is wasted on them.

Gottlieb, however, is in a category by himself.

He is a rogue cop, more than Nifong is a rogue prosecutor. Fat Pig Gottlieb seriously needs to get fired and be kept out of law enforcement for the rest of his despicable life.

I would not assume nor even suggest that Mr. Covington was not loyal to his clients. I suspect everyone who first came in contact with this case expected it to be cleared up soon.

Certainly Mr. Cheshire for example thought he could talk or have Mr. Evans talk to authorities and this should be cleared up. But it also became clear to everyone who looked at this case likely including Mr. Covington that this case was being treated differently.

Some of the minority commentators like the Professor highlighted yesterday do make the point asking where the support is for black victims of prosecutorial abuse.

I think that you can't have it both ways. That's why I'm surprised that they are so eager to continue the railroad.

On the roundtable from WRAL, the interesing observation was that the three indicted players spent at least 3 million on their legal representation. Which is about the amount spent in Durham for all of those that couldn't afford legal representation.

It seems so obvious that everyone should work to see that railroads don't happen. If for no other reason, then self-preservation and reducing personal taxes.

Continuing the lies about the lacrosse case only hurts themselves or the populations that they feel that they have to support.

The lynch mob who tried to convict the Duke 3, still cannot just say sorry--I was wrong. A good example is Susan Estrich. But she writes and not always to "her" choir. Michael Gaynor takes her apart wonderfully. 6-22-07http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/070622sorry, don't know how to make a link

Expect Wes Covington was just trying to help, but thankfully his guidance, if accurately reported, was not followed. Would also expect he was loyal to his clients if he had any in this case. It is really dangerous to talk to police without legal representation in most cases, particularly when it is the police practice to only take selective notes and sometimes months later. Do the DPD personnel receive any training on taking contemporaneous notes and writing accurate reports? Also, again, do the DPD personnel receive any training regarding civil rights?

Michael Gaynor states that Dean Sue was the one who got Wes Covington as a "facilitator" for the Duke team facing the PD. I have 2 questions.

Why? His specialty is medical malpractice. Was it because he was a former ADA there? A link to the PD and Nifong?

Is Covington covered by the agreement of the Duke 3 with Duke? Can he be sued? It seems that he had a conflict (his client was really Duke U) and yet students may have thought he was representing them.

Gaynor said: "Conclusion: "If one focuses on the more important measures of character, integrity and responsible behavior...the lacrosse players have...behaved better, on average, than other Duke students."

Not sure which article you are taliking about. Mr. Gaynor make a great case that if you compare the Duke lacrosse team to the other students on compus they are better.

If you don't like Mr. Gaynor's politics, just say so. He realizes that they have been noisy, and had neighbor complaints, but NEVER has he said what you are proposing. He continues to categorize them as exemplary students and total victims.

He writes information he got from Duke's Judicial Affairs Department which compares lacrosse players to the rest of the students.

It's a long list and includes the number of complaints and if lacrosse students were involved.

amac at 11:10 needs to be read and re-read by everyone. This case shows that even under the *best* of circumstances, the state can railroad innocent people with impunity.

I am really really really getting tired of such trite leftist bilge. The reason not to railroad the Duke 3 is that YOU SHOULD NOT RAILROAD ANYONE.

Seriously did you guys or anyone continuously post about the Tulia, Tx railroad job that if the police could railroad those poor black people, they could railroad any of us with perjury? Well that would be equally true.

re: Tulia; I don't recall the majority of the teaching staff at a major university and the New York Times editorializing that those defendants all deserved to be convicted even though the evidence said otherwise.

Don't even recall anyone writing "well, I still believe SOMETHING happened to get those people arrested!" In fact, I recall that as soon as the scam came to light they were all exonerated, and it was universally agreed that they should be.

Gottlieb is pathetic. His hindsight isn't even 20/20. He got to see all of the evidence before his brain dump to paper some 4 months later and he still managed to get it wrong. At every turn in this case, the story changed in an attempt to fit it to the growing body of unassailable facts. No wonder the defense got to the point where they held back exculpatory evidence (e.g., the photo of Crystal leaving the house clutching, not her purse, but Dave Evan's shaving kit) until the DA's story was locked in. But Nifong's story of what happened, which was a joint effort, was never locked in.

Out in black churches today in the Triangle is the latest edition of the Triangle Tribune,with a front-page article on Nifong (quoting Peterson and Joyner among others) and an editorial ("the most Nifong should have gotten was a long suspension...the lacrosse team are not 100 per cent innocent.")

And this idiot is an officer of the law - and at one time was an EMT in the same area??? God forbid is Gottlieb is the "typical" officer that is a member of the DPD. The state AG/Feds need to look at not just the DA's office, but the DPD for their shoddy police work.

Geez, take a deep breath. I agree with you completely and that was the point of saying that if it can happen under the "best" of circumstances, it can happen to anyone anywhere. Do I really need to say "and that's a bad thing?"

These are people who are rarely if ever challenged in their jobs. Their arrogance is their chief protection from the ordinary citizens questioning them about anything of consequence. They are oblivious to the people they serve. The system was made for them and not the people who created the system in their wisdom realizing that any civilized society needs the law. Watch the proceedings of any court . . . family court perhaps. Everything is shorthanded and thrown into a preconcieved way of thinking without really thinking about the facts of a case. After all, womaen don't lie about being raped. This is just one of the canards that interferes with justice and domestic tranquility. Remember, this is about justice. It is not an argument for the absense of rape. It does occur. It just did not occur in this case. Couldn't these supposedly educated people think about what was in front of them? Nifong, Gottlieb, the Duke Group88, Duke University, Durham, President Brodhead and the whole motley group of potbangers have just proven to be pathetic in their ignorance of law and themselves.

KC, I hadnt realized that Crystal told the docs and/or nursing staff on March 15 that she felt "no pain" during the attack because she had been drunk.

Please refer to the notes of her December interview with the investigator sent by Nifong (I think it was Lovely Linwood). He reports her describing the insertion of something into her vagina. She says it felt like a penis and that she experienced a "sharp pain."

....If you google Wes Covington and check out his bio, you will note he was once an Assistant DA in Durham. Hmmmm? At least he attended Duke undergrad so you have to assume he had no special dislike of Duke students, although not clear where his loyalties may have been. ::No special dislike of Duke students?

I would not make that assumption at all.

We have evidence that in 2006 there were students on the campus of Duke who hated white males and anyone else they saw as privileged.

"Hiring or watching strippers is not heroic, of course. But the way the players, indicted and unindicted, reacted to the politically motivated and racist persecution that followed WAS heroic. No one agreed to lie for the prosecution. For telling the truth and not wavering, players were publicly pilloried. They suffered heroically. They stayed strong and learned from the horrific experience. They are heroes, Ms. Estrich. You and Wicked Wendy Murphy are zeroes. "

Oh Dear. Police agencies commonly have specific procedures for the handling of notes and reports. For patrol officers, most agencies require that all reports are completed at the end of each duty shift, prior to an officer going home. For investigators, who may be working on a case for weeks or months, frequent case update reports, commently called supplements or addenda are required. In all cases, all initial reports and supplements must be read and approved by supervisors.

These procedures exist to avoid the kind of difficulties that this Sgt's testimony so clearly outline. Most agencies don't require that an officer keep every scrap of paper on which they doodle, and any competent officer can deal with defense attorneys who try to suggest misbehavior by explaining that they transferred everything relevant to the case at hand from their handwritten notes to the typewritten case report within hours of investigating the case, etc. They also explain that if every officer was required to keep every scrap of paper on which they wrote something, no evidence facility on the planet would be large enough to contain all of those notes. The officer simply testifies that he transferred the notes to an official report as quickly as possible and within department guidelines, and that the official report accurately represents his notes and his recollection of the facts.

Unfortunately, none of that common practice seems to have occured here. Is this a matter of officers not following agency guidelines, or something else? It would indeed be interesting to know.

We use whiteboards a lot at work and it can be difficult to copy the information so sometimes we take digital photos of the information and then email them around so that everyone has a copy as needed.

Some of the diagrams are quite a bit of work to put in ASCII or other graphical form easily used in documents.

I recall one time when there was a huge plan on a set of white boards that got erased and discovered in the morning (this was about 20 years ago). It turns out the cleaners couldn't read the [Do Not Erase] comments on the board because they couldn't read english. So we had to add the spanish equivalent.

In our case, we simply lose some number of hours of work and have to recreate it.

In the case of police, people get arrested, indicted, charged, handcuffed, thrown in jail, and get their reputations trashed.

It was either a cop abusing the search warrant to defame, or a lacrosse player on MacFayden's recepient list, or it was a Duke employee in Computer Services.

The second choice appears highly unlikely, and choices #1 and #3 are subject to possible criminal and civil litigation.

As to computer services, I have in mind the employee already suspected of creating the "Vigilante Poster" being the one who looked at students private emails through his administrator password to email server files. (I don't want to use the guy's name because there is no evidence, only suspicions about him and his Ubuntu/Progressive Alliance Pals)

It also might have something to do with why the lawsuit against Duke by the other 43 hasn't been settled yet. Besides the difficulty in getting 43 parties Plus Duke to agree to anything, new Electronic Privacy Laws are the new legal tort frontier.

***************On the Whiteboard - Michael is right that many of us in "investigations or conceptualizing" love them. Some are photo'd and the new ones can themselves take "digital snapshots" of the board and store it on downloadble memory cards that can migrate into the hated adobe.pdf format.

Concepts are taken and refined. Recorded statements are written out on whiteboard. Various groups, and their actions and names are written in. Investigator comments added...

But I'll tell you something - before anything valuable is erased - without fail - the person erasing always asks the other persons in the group "is this stuff written down, copied, I'm about to erase it. Everyone OK with it??"

That Gottlieb failed to, and wiped out contemporaneous notes time after time - that were part of a multi-group criminal investigation team that could be requested by criminal defense and prosecution lawyers - on assumption someone must have copied it, without verifying it even casually with people in the same room as he erased, absolutely defies belief.

Along with most of us here,I am eagerly awaiting your upcoming book. However, most of the readers of your book with have at best only followed part of this case (indeed, the only reason I have paid much attention is due to a friend who is a Duke grad).

I worry much of your good work/material/research/insights will be "left on the cutting room floor".

History will suffer if much of the smaller/less well known information is not published. Or the various clips you are showing here are lost/forgotten.

I am currently reading Bugliosi's book on the Kennedy assassination. He got around this problem by placing a disk in the back of the book with additional research/documents/etc. Perhaps you have thought of this, or its a bad idea for other reasons.

KC - I have 2 kids--> I want them to be able to know the truth in 20 years (thats a long time for the MSM to rewrite history).

Yes... and the excellent points you made at 3:52am stand (and would be well worth the consideration of any serious, subpoena-empowered investigators).

How did DPD come into possession of the McFadyen email? Why are the institutions involved in this technically-straightforward question (Durham DA, DPD, CrimeStoppers, DUPD, Duke IT, Duke Administration) so determined to not take steps to discover its answer?

Gottlieb's "whiteboard" story strikes me as one of those interesting but unlikely tales that litter the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax landscape.

Is there independent evidence that DPD sex-crimes investigators actually use whiteboards as Gottlieb described (are they even installed)? Per Michael's 3:57pm comment, what are DPD's SOPs for capturing and using the vital information recorded on whiteboards? Is this the first "whoops, accidentally erased!" occurence in DPD history, or is it an everyday affair?

I suspect that, if questioned, this plausible explanation will evaporate, in the fashion of so many others since the Hoax started to crumble.

...Oh Dear. Police agencies commonly have specific procedures for the handling of notes and reports.

...Unfortunately, none of that common practice seems to have occurred here. Is this a matter of officers not following agency guidelines, or something else? It would indeed be interesting to know. ::I'll bet that much of what we read is the internal DPD culture of claiming lack of resources to hire enough people to do all that work ...associated with being a town with...you guessed it ....Duke University.

How can you expect me to takes notes if hundreds of news people are lurking around - over there - and making our jobs sooooo oooooo ooooo difficult. ::GP

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review